Joe Patti

Looking to revisit the idea of audiences reviewing performances, I took a look at some research Greg Beuthin over at Extension 311 had done on the subject. Though I did a Google search similar to the one he lists in addition to using some keywords of my own, I didn’t find much more than he. Even worse, the one theatre I found in my last search that appeared to be setting up a way for performers and directors to blog has removed their website entirely. Though others like My London Life , a chronicle of a London based director’s experiences, are going ahead strong. (Though understandably with some commentary on the recent bombings.)

In fact, of the sites he links, many of those that offer the opportunity to review don’t have any posted. The exceptions are fringe festivals (which he says really encourage their audiences to do so). He uses the examples of San Francisco Fringe and Edinburgh Fringe (The Edinburgh ones are more like advertisements from people who have seen the pieces elsewhere since the festival doesn’t actually start for another week.)

One of the best audience review sites in terms of the detail to which people go in discussing the experiences is On The Boards. I have been critical of their editorial policy in the past, but I have never questioned the quality of their entries which seems to remain high.

New York Times had a terrific story (picked up by Artsjournal.com today) about a website that will do for traveling artists what Tripadvisor.com does for hotel seekers. GoTour.org (hosted/sponsored by The Field) provides a place where artists can post and receive advice about how to go about performing at certain venues, how audiences in different parts of North America react to different types of music, where good eats can be found, etc. You can search venues by state or by region–a helpful feature if you are considering regional tours.

The website is well organized and attractive. However, its biggest strength is also its biggest weakness–it depends on people to enter the information. This is a strength in that you get some good practical advice from people who have been there. Their experience is subjective perhaps, but it is much better advice than you will get from buying a book on touring North America.

Depending on user input is also a weakness because, well, there is nothing entered in the website. While there are local guides for New York City, there isn’t a single venue listed for the place, nothing at all listed for Philadelphia (or any part of PA except Allentown). I found listing for venues that no longer exist. (The NYT article says the website is celebrating its first anniversary, but I found entries from 2001 and the site has a 2003 copyright.)

Regardless of the shape it is in now, I am posting about it in the hope that readers will contribute to it and flesh it out a bit. It has a great potential for being useful to artists so everyone do your bit and update it!

Again from our friends at Artsjournal.com is a Wired article about how Internet content may not be free for much longer. (But just above it was this blog entry about how classical music fans were overjoyed that downloads of Beethoven from the BBC exceeded that of U2–except the Beethoven was free so it is unfair to compare. People like free stuff.)

The Wired article points out that television was free when it started, but now that the delivery medium has evolved, we pay for it, as basis for claiming at at some point we will regularly pay for internet content as well.

Much of the article is devoted to discussing the pitfalls of transitioning from free to pay-for-content. The worst being alienating all those who currently patronize your site and sending them to your competitor.

The very end of the article mentions that blogs will probably always be free. This might be dangerous for some websites if they cede an opinion shaping position totally over to blogs.

This was interesting and all, but the reason I chose it for today’s entry is because it got me thinking that perhaps there were other ways to structure access to performances, museums and the like.

In fact, IDG is a living example of this. The company operates 300 websites and employs about 200 online strategies — free content, cheap content, expensive content, content that requires an onerous registration process, and content that requires little more than an e-mail address and ZIP code. In some cases, a website may have three-quarters free content and a quarter requiring registration or a subscription. Or, it could offer a subscription for $150 a year but give it away if the reader fills out a detailed registration form.

Obviously applying these ideas for arts organizations where people are present physically is different from the internet where their presence is virtual and easier to limit.

Honestly, the only application I have been able to come up with that is directly associated with the structures the article mentions is for museums. You can peruse this gallery with limited Mucha prints for free, but if you want to see a more detailed exhibit, you have to pay. Unless theatres dance and concert halls let people in for the first half for free and then made them pay to come back in after intermission, I can’t see it working exactly the same for live performances.

Though perhaps the perception of some value for free while the suckers paid to go back in would provide an inducement for people to attend where a totally free or totally paid event might not. I will have to think upon this whole subject some more and post about it later.